So after Yair Golan said at the time that he "recognizes (fascist) processes in Israel, and after Lapid explained that anti-Semitism is almost everywhere, even between the Hutu and the Tutsi, it was the turn of the Israeli prime minister to invent a new message on this day.
"The Garden of Partisanship," Bennett explained in his speech.
"Partisanship must not dismantle Israel from within," and Yoaz Handel added, "Never again - civil war."
The implantation of the term "garden" (sectarianism) in itself to explain the behavior of the Jewish people, especially on Holocaust Day, is uncomfortable.
But the historical distortion that may be implied from his words is unbearable.
I find it hard to believe that I have to write these things, and yet: the Holocaust is not about division in the Jewish people.
Not for civil war.
Not for free hatred between us.
But this new interpretation is not accidental.
The mention of "free hatred" is a kind of new silencing mechanism.
Just like the "incitement trick," which is occasionally raised accompanied by immediate collective condemnation demands and the binge of apologies imposed on the right.
This time someone is trying to renew the sense of the Altalena crisis, in order to delegitimize the growing public opposition to this dangerous government.
Alongside this polluting political addition to the memory of the Holocaust of the Jewish people, another thing happened, precisely because of its absence: the Israeli prime minister did not mention the Iranian danger on Holocaust Day.
And while the government media celebrated "without Iran and without hysteria and intimidation," it itself forgot the parable.
In other words: this is not the speech, this is the reality it reflects.
Iran's removal from the speech is tantamount to the government's continued surrender to its lax policy toward Iran in its emerging nuclear deal and regional intensification.
After all, the statements about Iran's danger, the nuclear program and its desire to destroy the State of Israel - are not intended internally, to frighten the citizens of the country.
On the contrary, they are directed outward, to the world powers, and the United States in particular.
A direct line is drawn between the unnecessary use of the discourse of partisanship on this day, and the fact that Bennett chose not to attack the world in his speech regarding the Iranian threat.
After all, how can he say in this capacity that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and how can he weave the continuity of danger from the Germany of then to today's Iran - when his government succumbs to the signing of the nuclear agreement?
An agreement based on the wrong rationale of the superpowers that Iran can be a "normal" country, a member of the family of nations, that respects international agreements, and that its desire to destroy us will be shelved for a few dollars.
The political preoccupation we received instead of all this was meant to hide the political weakness.
Excluding Iran from the speech not only embodies the government's weakness and total subordination to the French-American agenda.
It, above all, sins against the most important lesson for the Jewish people: Anyone who does not understand that the statement "never again" today means "neither to a strong and nuclear Iran" nor to the surrender of the world powers to it - does not deserve to be prime minister of the Jewish people.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us